I assume that’s why they put Lois McMaster Bujold on their slate: she’s won a shit-ton of Hugos already, and the novella they nominated is the furthest thing from a manly space romp. So clearly if she doesn’t win, we’re just picking on them!
Bujold actually asked to be removed from their slate. They refused. I doubt she feels too bad about not winning.
I do wonder why Jim Butcher has allowed himself to be nominated by the Sad and Rabid Puppies slates two years running. He hasn’t said a word about why, but based on the interviews I’ve read and the content of the Dresden Files and Codex Alera sagas, I can’t imagine he shares their noxious ideologies. He’s such an excellent writer, but I’ve seen people online say they won’t read him due to his being on the slates. And I hate to see it because while his books aren’t the most highest litratchoor, they’re very good fun. (Though Skin Game wasn’t the best Dresden Files novel to date and I’ve yet to read The Aeronaut’s Windlass.)
Butcher’s a full-fledged pup (albeit of the Sad rather than Rabid variety); he’s been part of it from the beginning. He just keeps quiet about it because he’s smart enough to realise that overtly affiliating with them could hurt his sales.
An active association with Beale is, bluntly, death for your Hugo award chances. I mean, it takes a lot for someone as esteemed in the field as Jerry Pournelle to finish below “No Award” in Hugo voting, and yet, there he is, sixth in a field of five in the category of Best Editor, Short Form. --John Scalzi
Damn, I’m sorry to hear that. I’m addicted to his stuff! I suppose I could understand if it was just a desire to have more nostalgic works nominated, or if he was just thirsty for awards… but the way the Sads are going about it with their “stick it to the SJWs” talk is repellent to me. And don’t even get me started on Vox Day and his shenanigans. Now I don’t know if I want to keep reading his books.
Is there anything online that might give me a better idea why Butcher’s allying with the Sads? My Google-fu has failed me on this.
Nup; Butcher’s made a point of maintaining a much less outspoken profile than the rest of 'em, probably because he actually has a successful writing career to lose (again, unlike the rest of the pups).
I don’t know the bloke, and he hasn’t made any public statements on the subject apart from what’s mentioned here: Butcher fails where Bellet and Kloos succeeded – Wis[s]e Words
OTOH, he does seem to share a certain “yay for God and guns! Boo to liberal feminists!” vibe with the rest of 'em.
Huh. I’m missing something, I think (which is very possible as I know darn well I haven’t read every interview or heard every podcast he’s been in.) There’s no lack of strong, powerful female characters in Butcher’s works. But then, there can be quite a difference between an author and what they write. 
[quote=“Nightflyer, post:48, topic:83830, full:true”] There’s no lack of strong, powerful female characters in Butcher’s works. But then, there can be quite a difference between an author and what they write. 
[/quote]
I’ve never read his stuff, so this is purely second hand, but there are quite a few folks who find Butcher’s “strong female characters” to be somewhat problematically portrayed.
Mileage may vary, obviously.
I read that review and you’re right, mileage may vary, but… ouch. It felt to me like the reviewer had an axe to grind. There are a few things I don’t think she fully took into account. (I may get a thing or two wrong here as it’s been a while since I read Storm Front…two words, not one, which is minor nitpick but still…) The series was created as a pastiche of urban fantasy and noir mystery, where all the women are dames and all the men are manly. Does Butcher overdo it? Maybe, I’d have to reread it, but I don’t remember it offending me at the time. It does get better as the series goes on. Also, at the time it was published, sexy urban fantasy was very much the rage-- there was plenty of titillating scenes in early Laurell K. Hamilton too (don’t get me started on her work) and IIRC, they had the same agent. Yes, Harry does tend to be especially protective of women, but it’s not as if he doesn’t get called on it either, especially in later books. And he can recognize ability and agency in the women around him. As they become friends and allies, he certainly comes to trust and rely in the abilities of Police Detective Karrin Murphy, who starts out as an antagonist in book one and winds up becoming his best friend… and maybe more at this point.
That’s actually one of the things I’ve loved about the series as a whole-- it’s not the same thing over and over again. Characters grow and change and develop. Butcher actually does an amazing job of rotating a large cast of characters into and out of the narrative, as needed and when needed, keeping them distinct and interesting over what, fifteen novels and how many short stories now? Not every author is capable of that cough cough Hamilton cough cough.
I won’t disagree that elements of Harry’s sexual attitudes can be problematic at times, especially in more recent books where his adoption of the mantle of Winter Knight has the unexpected side effect of ramping up his more primitive drives-- violence, ownership, and sex. But even Harry can acknowledge his flaws and tries to do the right thing. (His enemies acknowledge it too: an evil vampire presented him with a gift of a burial plot and tombstone inscribed, “He died doing the right thing.”) If Harry was a perfect character, the books would be boring. But he’s flawed, he makes mistakes, he learns, he grows.
Tl,dr: To each their own, I suppose. The first book was pretty rough, but it was not only the first book of the series but Butcher’s first book as well. I didn’t have as much trouble with it as the reviewer did.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
